Judge Ariel Lijo in the hot seat over phone recordings

Friday, February 10, 2017

Supreme Court demands answers over leaked Parrilli, CFK wiretaps

Judge Ariel Lijo and the DICOM wiretaps office gave explanations yesterday to the Supreme Court over a scandal that was ignited after records of telephone conversations held between former President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner and the former head of the AFI federal intelligence agency Oscar Parrilli had been periodically leaked in the past few weeks. This comes only days after Prosecutor Guillermo Marijuan requested Parrilli’s arrest, arguing that there existed the possibility he may escape after he was indicted for allegedly helping cover up an investigation into Ibar Pérez Corradi, who is accused of drug-trafficking and the General Rodríguez triple murder.

The former AFI head denied any wrongdoing. “It’s a paradox. I’m indicted for having covered up a person who is not indicted, whose charges were ruled to be without evidence. They are indicting me for hiding information about someone who isn’t a criminal,” said Parrilli when he heard of Marijuan’s appeal.

Lijo, who had indicted Parrilli without ordering him to be put in custody, had to explain yesterday to the Supreme Court why telephone conversations from wiretappings he had ordered on suspects in his case were released to the press.

Furthermore, the court requested Lijo to inform the court of any incident that could lead to finding out which agents could be responsible for capturing, transmitting and safeguarding the wiretaps that he requested in his case. Lijo gave a brief overview of his actions, and justified them, saying that he never received any complaint from the corresponding parties over the validity of the wiretappings conducted.

“We authorised Federal Intelligence Agency personnel — which I also have to keep confidential due to the corresponding regulatory laws — to carry out wiretappings of certain telephones and also to remove the hard disks that contain the recordings conducted then,” said Lijo.

The judge added that the copy of the wiretaps were made using machines in the judicial office by a Secretary of the court, who after finishing copying each disk, would then store it in a safe deposit in that same court. Last year, the Supreme Court had transferred the wiretaps division that was run by the Attorney General’s Office to the hands of Martín Irurzun, the head of the Buenos Aires City Federal Criminal Appeals Court.